PTAB

IPR2020-00596

Louisiana Pacific Corp v. Huber Engineered Woods LLC

Log In
Key Events
Petition
petition

1. Case Identification

2. Patent Overview

  • Title: Panel System for Sheathing
  • Brief Description: The ’197 patent relates to sheathing systems for roofs and walls using lignocellulosic panels with a factory-applied, water-resistant, and vapor-permeable barrier layer. The system includes sealing the joints between adjacent panels to create a continuous building envelope that resists bulk water intrusion while allowing moisture vapor to escape.

3. Grounds for Unpatentability

Ground 1: Obviousness over APA and StoGuard - Claims 1-20 are obvious over APA in view of StoGuard-2001, StoGuard-2003, and other references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: APA ("APA Engineered Wood Handbook," 2002), StoGuard-2001 (a 2001 press release), StoGuard-2003 (a 2003 press release), Peng (Patent 7,159,368), and Flack (Patent 4,828,635).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that APA disclosed the foundational system: using adjacent lignocellulosic (wood) structural panels for exterior sheathing with recommended spacing between them. APA also taught the use of weather-resistive barriers, such as building paper or factory-applied overlays on plywood, and sealing joints with caulk or tape. The StoGuard references taught a modern, liquid-applied waterproof coating and joint filler that is vapor-permeable and serves as a direct substitute for APA's older barrier types. Peng and Flack provided additional teachings on panel systems with various sealants and vapor-permeable membranes. Petitioner asserted that secondary references disclosed the specific features of dependent claims, such as permeability ranges (ASTM standards, Alaska report), textured surfaces for traction (Byrd, DiPede), and tongue-and-groove joints (Forbes).
    • Motivation to Combine: A Person of Ordinary Skill in the Art (POSITA) would combine APA's conventional sheathing system with StoGuard's liquid-applied barrier to improve resistance to water infiltration. This combination represented a known, cost-effective, and functionally superior alternative to traditional housewraps, offering an easier and more seamless application as taught by StoGuard.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected because the combination involved the simple substitution of one known type of water-resistive barrier (building paper) with another known, improved type (liquid-applied coating) on a standard panel sheathing system, a predictable design choice.

Ground 2: Obviousness over Forbes - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Forbes in view of Peng, Flack, and other references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Forbes (GB Patent Pub. 2364338A), Peng (Patent 7,159,368), and Flack (Patent 4,828,635).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner asserted that Forbes disclosed the core claimed invention: a lignocellulosic (e.g., plywood/OSB) structural wall panel with a factory-applied, co-extensive barrier layer that is vapor-permeable and liquid-impermeable. Forbes also taught using tongue-and-groove joints secured with a waterproof adhesive, thereby meeting the primary limitations of independent claims 1 and 12. Secondary references were cited to teach specific limitations not explicitly detailed in Forbes, such as liquid-applied sealants (Peng) as an alternative to Forbes's adhesive, or specific permeability and friction coefficient ranges found in various ASTM standards and other technical publications.
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would have been motivated to modify the Forbes system with elements from other references to optimize performance or reduce cost and labor. For example, a POSITA would substitute Forbes's joint adhesive with the seam tape taught by Van Wagoner or the liquid sealant of Peng to provide a cheaper and easier-to-apply seal, representing a predictable design choice to improve a known product.
    • Expectation of Success: Combining known sealing technologies (tape, liquid sealants) with Forbes's integrated panel system was a straightforward application of well-understood building principles that would yield predictable results.

Ground 3: Obviousness over Kenji - Claims 1-20 are obvious over Kenji in view of Peng, Flack, and other references.

  • Prior Art Relied Upon: Kenji (JP Patent Pub. 2001-020415), Peng (Patent 7,159,368), and Flack (Patent 4,828,635).
  • Core Argument for this Ground:
    • Prior Art Mapping: Petitioner argued that Kenji disclosed a wall panel system using plywood panels with a factory-applied, waterproof, and moisture-permeable sheet, with joints sealed by bulk water-resistant tape. This combination taught the fundamental structure of adjacent panels with an integrated barrier layer and sealed joints, meeting the basic elements of the independent claims. As in the other grounds, numerous secondary references were used to demonstrate that specific features recited in dependent claims were well-known in the art, including resin-impregnated paper overlays (Ou, Hoffman), specific performance ranges (ASTM standards), and textured surfaces (Hsu, Byrd).
    • Motivation to Combine: A POSITA would combine Kenji's system with alternative known components to improve it. For instance, a POSITA would be motivated to substitute Kenji's barrier sheet with Flack's laminated membrane or seal the joints with Peng's liquid caulk to achieve better performance or easier installation, both being known alternatives for creating a weather-resistive building envelope.
    • Expectation of Success: Success was expected as it involved combining or substituting known, interchangeable components (e.g., barriers, sealants) within an established type of panelized construction system to achieve predictable improvements.

4. Relief Requested

  • Petitioner requests institution of an inter partes review and cancellation of claims 1-20 of the ’197 patent as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103.